Quote:Although I submit that a cross and a person's body are two different things, and trying to pretend that the person is like a public building and shouldn't be allowed to decorate themselves except in constitutionally appropriate ways is ludicrous.

OK.

The Followers of Christ in Oregon, Washington, and Idaho believe that their religion forbids seeking medical attention for their children when they get sick or injured, and that God will heal them if they are worthy. This has nothing to do with crosses or buildings; it has to do directly with a person's body -- specifically, children's bodies.

Up until just 6 years ago, Oregon law held a religious exemption for this sect, which allowed them to refuse medical treatment to their children, and parents were immune from legal action. Then it was discovered that in local branch of this sect, a community of fewer than 800 people, more than 80 children died, many of them in agony, from treatable and even curable conditions, over just a 17 year period.

There had been attempts to have this exemption removed for more than 20 years, always stymied by religious apologists, who claimed that the state was trying to interfere in their freedom of religion. The religious exemption was finally removed in 2011, and now these parents can be compelled to obtain medical care for their children, or have them removed from their home. And if the child dies, the parents can be prosecuted for neglect.

The apologists were correct, of course: the law is an interference by the state in freedom of religion. Perhaps we should reinstate the religious exception for the Followers of Christ and let their children "decide for themselves" about medical treatment, and whether they'd prefer dying in agony to being cured?

All in the name of respecting religion, and personal choice, of course.

(23-05-2017 02:11 PM)morondog Wrote: The point being that under those circumstances this whole separation of church and state deal might be invoked, in a similar way to how on government land crosses aren't allowed to be erected.

Quote:Although I submit that a cross and a person's body are two different things, and trying to pretend that the person is like a public building and shouldn't be allowed to decorate themselves except in constitutionally appropriate ways is ludicrous.

OK.

The Followers of Christ in Oregon, Washington, and Idaho believe that their religion forbids seeking medical attention for their children when they get sick or injured, and that God will heal them if they are worthy. This has nothing to do with crosses or buildings; it has to do directly with a person's body -- specifically, children's bodies.

Up until just 6 years ago, Oregon law held a religious exemption for this sect, which allowed them to refuse medical treatment to their children, and parents were immune from legal action. Then it was discovered that in local branch of this sect, a community of fewer than 800 people, more than 80 children died, many of them in agony, from treatable and even curable conditions, over just a 17 year period.

There had been attempts to have this exemption removed for more than 20 years, always stymied by religious apologists, who claimed that the state was trying to interfere in their freedom of religion. The religious exemption was finally removed in 2011, and now these parents can be compelled to obtain medical care for their children, or have them removed from their home. And if the child dies, the parents can be prosecuted for neglect.

The apologists were correct, of course: the law is an interference by the state in freedom of religion. Perhaps we should reinstate the religious exception for the Followers of Christ and let their children "decide for themselves" about medical treatment, and whether they'd prefer dying in agony to being cured?

All in the name of respecting religion, and personal choice, of course.

I don't think this is a fair comparison. You are equating allowing people to decorate their bodies with allowing them to murder kids. I think you're attempting to make an argument that this is a slippery slope, which it clearly isn't.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette

(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote: And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.

I read it. You are claiming they're being forced, I'm asking you, why don't we ask them, rather than you answering for them?

LOL. OK, ask them.

Apparently you don't think that religion is forced; I do.

If you had asked me when I was 12 years old if I was being "forced" to attend church or religious instruction, I would have said "no". What did I know then about forcing? It was what I was expected to do, and it was what all my Catholic friends did. As far as I knew then, it was the norm.

If you had asked my parents, I doubt they would have said they were forcing me, either. To them, it was part of a normal Catholic upbringing. Never mind that I didn't understand why I had to do a lot of the things I was required to do, or that my parents didn't understand the crap that was going on in "religious instruction".

It took me years to realize how I had been indoctrinated and forced to do things that no one ever bothered to ask me if I wanted to do.

(23-05-2017 03:51 PM)morondog Wrote: I don't think this is a fair comparison. You are equating allowing people to decorate their bodies with allowing them to murder kids. I think you're attempting to make an argument that this is a slippery slope, which it clearly isn't.

I am not equating people decorating their bodies with people murdering their kids.
(And the Followers of Christ are not "murdering" their kids; they're simply allowing them to die because, to them, "it's God's will".)

I am pointing out the consequences of allowing "religious exemptions" in the law.
Some exemptions have more egregious consequences than others, but they all represent an institutionalization of unequal treatment.

And yes, it is a slippery slope; it sets a precedent. Historically, once you start allowing exemptions, more exemptions are requested, and more are granted. If you don't treat everyone the same, then you have to start making exceptions for every group -- except there will always be some left out.

Until the system becomes unwieldy with exemptions and the ire of the non-exempt -- who will rightly feel that they are being discriminated against -- and topples over and has to be rebooted. After decades -- in some cases centuries -- of advancing towards an equitable treatment of religious differences, we have, in recent years, begun to regress.

But I'm not going to convince you, and you're not going to convince me.

Maybe we'd best let it go at that and move on.
Time will tell which, if either of us, is right.